Italian Fascist War Crimes in Ethiopia - Societa italiana di storia ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Italian Fascist War Crimes in Ethiopia 121 ( w h e n ever that was). If any dispute arises on such a claim, it will go before the 4 Ambassadors. I don’t think UNWCC comes into the picture at all. I suppose it could theoretically take the line that crimes (of the nature of wa r crimes) committed by the Italians subsequent to Oct. 3 1935 we re equivalent to war crimes and that would help the Ethiopian Govt. to the ex t e n t that the moral authority of the UNWCCs opinion behind them. But, as Article 45 is drafted, they [i.e. the Ethiopian Government] don’t need any backing at all. Another official, William Beckett, noted, on 31 January: “I agre e. We want the U N WCC to be wound up now & not take a new section of wo r k . ” 5 7 B e c ke t t ’ s wo rds indicate that the Fo reign Office now envisaged the imminent termination of the commission. It was evident that the British Government, long opposed to Ethiopian participation, would scarcely be willing to have proceedings pro l o n g e d to accommodate the hearing of new cases from Ethiopia. The 1947 Italian Peace Treaty The Italian Peace Treaty was finally signed in Paris, on 10 February 1947. The text, as far as Ethiopia was concerned, was identical to that in the earlier version. Article 38 thus specified that articles relating to Ethiopia applied to the period from Fascist Italy’s invasion, on 3 October 1935, while Article 45 established the Italian Government’s responsibility for the apprehension and surrender of persons accused of having committed, ordered, or abetted war crimes and crimes against peace or humanity. The Commission’s Tardy Reaction to the Peace Treaty The signing of the Peace Treaty was important for the UN Commission. Its members could no longer abide by their earlier, British-inspired, resolution of 31 July 1946, that there was no evidence of “a ny connection” between the “Italo- A byssinian war” and that later waged in Euro p e, or that member States did not wish the Committee to “deal with crimes committed in any other wa r.” The T re a t y, signed by all the UN member states, had established, on the contra r y, that the wa r, for Ethiopia, had begun on 3 October 1935, and thus formed part and parcel of the conflict as a whole.
122 Richard Pankhurst The Commission was re m a r kably slow to react to the Tre a t y. It was not until 29 October 1947, over nine months after its signing, that the commission finally a g reed to consider cases relating to war crimes committed in Ethiopia, as from 3 October 1935. The commission, most conveniently for the British, had by then nearly reached the end of its originally envisaged work. This was scheduled to terminate a few months later, on 31 March 1948, and the Fo reign Office, as Becke t t had suggested, was unwilling to extend proceedings on Ethiopia’s account. The Ethiopian Government, because of British intransigence and the commission’s sloth, thus had only five months to submit its cases, whereas the major powers had received almost as many years to prepare theirs. This discrepancy was the more serious, for Ethiopia, for two reasons: 1) Most Italian war crimes had been committed when the pre - wa r Ethiopian state was collapsing, or had fallen, rendering it difficult for the restored Ethiopian Government to collect legal testimony. 2) The Ethiopian state had been restored only in 1941, and was therefore acutely short of trained personnel. Ethiopia was thus not well-equipped to rush forward with a major trial in the short time afforded it by its more fortunate allies. A Limited Number of Charges The Ethiopian Government, in this difficult situation, proposed a compromise. It was forwarded to the UN commission by the Ethiopian Advocate- General, Baron Eric Leijonhufvud, 58 a Swede, on 29 October 1947. He stated that Ethiopia would be prepared to limit itself to submitting only ten charges. He declared also that Ethiopia, to allay fears of possible bias from Ethiopian judges, agreed that the accused, if surrendered by Italy, would be tried by a court to include a majority of European judges. 59 The Ethiopian Commission’s Difficulties, and Achievements The Ethiopian commission’s difficulties in drawing up charges in the short time re q u i red, we re mentioned at the time by Baron Leijonhufvud,
Page 1 and 2: Italian Fascist War Crimes in Ethio
Page 3 and 4: 84 Richard Pankhurst The League of
Page 5 and 6: 86 Richard Pankhurst should be imme
Page 7 and 8: 88 Richard Pankhurst D i xon commen
Page 9 and 10: 90 Richard Pankhurst on 4 August. A
Page 11 and 12: 92 Richard Pankhurst criminals.”
Page 13 and 14: 94 Richard Pankhurst He made, howev
Page 15 and 16: 96 Richard Pankhurst Law was oblige
Page 17 and 18: 98 Richard Pankhurst from which it
Page 19 and 20: 100 Richard Pankhurst This communic
Page 21 and 22: 102 Richard Pankhurst continually p
Page 23 and 24: 104 Richard Pankhurst international
Page 25 and 26: 106 Richard Pankhurst The Foreign O
Page 27 and 28: 108 Richard Pankhurst Outlining Fo
Page 29 and 30: 110 Richard Pankhurst in particular
Page 31 and 32: 112 Richard Pankhurst p rompted a L
Page 33 and 34: 114 Richard Pankhurst institute leg
Page 35 and 36: 116 Richard Pankhurst Garner then r
Page 37 and 38: 118 Richard Pankhurst James Fawcett
Page 39: 120 Richard Pankhurst Government as
Page 43 and 44: 124 Richard Pankhurst 10. Enrico Ce
Page 45 and 46: 126 Richard Pankhurst not satisfied
Page 47 and 48: 128 Richard Pankhurst The committee
Page 49 and 50: 130 Richard Pankhurst Ethiopian Gov
Page 51 and 52: 132 Richard Pankhurst was “not a
Page 53 and 54: 134 Richard Pankhurst trial. The tr
Page 55 and 56: 136 Richard Pankhurst British and o
Page 57 and 58: 138 Richard Pankhurst 13. PREM 3/24
Page 59: 140 Richard Pankhurst 75. FO 371/79

Italian Fascist War Crimes in Ethiopia - Societa italiana di storia ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?